Alaskan Bears: To Be Seen, Or Shot?

[Agaliha]

Just saw this on the news.


Alaskan Bears: To Be Seen, Or Shot?
Protected For 50 Years, Life Is To Change For McNeil River's Brown Bears

The battleground is the renowned McNeil River State Game Sanctuary (http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/mcneil/), site of the world's largest concentration of brown bears. Hunting was banned at the sanctuary a half-century ago to allow the animals to get their annual fill of salmon in safety.
<snip>
The state says the decision is part of a game management plan. However, it means the big bears fishing and frolicking on the river today may be bear rugs a year from now.
<snip>
"The way we describe it is like shooting a neighbor's dog, it's heartbreaking," says Ken Day, who runs bear viewing tours in areas near the sanctuary along with his wife, Chris. "These bears come up to you and lay down and nurse their cubs and take naps. They feel protected by you from other bears."

Wildlife viewing — a half-billion-dollar a year tourist industry in Alaska, and growing — mirrors a changing state. By comparison, sport hunting generates $200 million, and hunter numbers are declining.

FROM: Alaskan Bears: To Be Seen, Or Shot? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/15/eveningnews/main1898409.shtml)

:goodgrief

All for money. Damn trophy hunters.
:sadman:

[Eldric_Dragonsblood]

Or maybe the State ecologist have determined that specific population is getting to large to be sustainable in that specific habitat, and are trying to find a way to cull the group, and provide money for Alaska at the same time? That article is very one sided. There are NO quotes from the State officials at all. Just one poorly spoken, and probably way out of context, quote to support the hunting, and one quote of feel good, happy sentiment which is obviously intended to tug the heart-strings.

It's way to one-sided to derive a reasoned, educated opinion.

[_Banbha_]

I thought it was an excellent article, Agaliha. Thanks for posting it. :)

The main point is demographics are changing, viewers as opposed hunters, in numbers and cash. The old guard still has the upper hand politically.


The other issue is a ethical and moral one. Opening a bear hunt in an area with animals who have no fear whatsoever of man, giving the environment of a canned hunt out in the open. That in itself is pretty reprehensible. Poor sportsmanship is the least of it. I know hunters who would not go for a hunt like that. The Vice President would LOVE it though. And then Nobody would be safe. _inabox_ Except for the quails. :spaceman:

[Agaliha]

I would have provided more links, but at this moment that's the only articleI can find. Sorry if it's too one-sided for some. One could skim the bear conversation sites and perhaps find more.
I saw the news program and thought it was something someone might be interested in.

I'm not opposed to hunting-- when it feeds people, when all the meat and resources are used, when the animal is dangerous to people, when there is no choice.

But here it seems like there is a choice, so the population is up, okay, that doesn't mean that it's to the point of mandatory killing. This seems to deal more with money than population and their status to the environment. The population being up is what is allowing this hunting option. There are other ways of lessening the numbers to the area-- relocation for example.

[Eldric_Dragonsblood]

Unfortunately, relocation rarely works. Bears have vast ranges, and many of them seem to know how to get home (a lot like crocodilians). Additionally, if you move a bear, especially in Alaska, you are likely moving said bear into another bear's territory.

Unless you want to relocate them to a fenced enclosure, it's not really a viable option.

Unfortunately, this idea of these bears not being afraid of humans is being thrown about. However, most guides (hiking, camping, or hunting) I've ever talked to all say there is no such thing as a tame bear. They tolerate humans because humans don't bother them. When the hunters start hunting them, the smart and fittest of the bears will learn very quickly to go elsewhere. Simple survival of the fittest.

Now to address the concern of feeding people and all resources of the animal being used. First of all, there has NEVER been a culture in the entire history of the world that has ALWAYS used every single bit of every single animal. Most commonly this lovely little myth is ascribed to Native American tribes. It's pure BS. Both Oral and Written histories give the lie to these myths. The Tribes used everything the NEEDED at the time of the kill. If the tribe didn't need anything in particular, a number of them would simply kill the animal, take the liver and the fatty parts, and leave the rest to rot.

Second, it's incredibly naive and rather offensive to assume the hunters in question with the bear hunt are not going to use all the resources. Most hunters, especially the "just trophey" hunters, will donate any additional meat to the poor. Other than the hide, trophey parts, and the meat, there really isn't anything else usable in modern society. We don't use bones for tools; we don't need stomach and gut for pots or pouches. We don't need sinew for bows. Besides, most likely, anything that will not be used by the hunter, or donated to the poor, will be left in the wild for wild animals to eat. Bear and wolves will eat the dead of their own species. So, it's likely nothing will be wasted.

Finally, many bear conservation sites aren't reliable sources. A number of them are opposed to the culling of bear populations, even if there are no private parties involved. Fair and balanced coverage of this debate is needed for one to properly determine weither one should support the hunters or the non-hunters.

[Cindlady2]

As much as I hate to see animals needlessly killed I do think we only have one side here. Here in Wisconsin they are culling deer heards due to over population and disease. Sometimes it just has to be done, our presents in "wild" areas upsets the balance no matter how careful we try to be.

[Anubis]

So.. when can we start culling people?.. overpopulation.. disease.. too many for a given area... hmmmmm.... I wonder what the daily limit would be...

[Mjollnir]

"The way we describe it is like shooting a neighbor's dog, it's heartbreaking," says Ken Day, who runs bear viewing tours in areas near the sanctuary along with his wife, Chris. "These bears come up to you and lay down and nurse their cubs and take naps. They feel protected by you from other bears."

Riiiiiiight, that self proclaimed a-hole Treadwell thought the same and he wound up in a steaming pile along with his girlfriend, instead of looking at this through Disney glasses, let the biologists do their job.

[Mjollnir]

So.. when can we start culling people?.. overpopulation.. disease.. too many for a given area... hmmmmm.... I wonder what the daily limit would be...


We do, it's called war, and there is no daily limit.

[Mjollnir]

There are other ways of lessening the numbers to the area-- relocation for example.


That will not work for 2 simple reasons: a) it makes it someone else's problem...and the cost to do so gets footed by the taxpayers to boot and b) they will find their way back. In my state last year Div. of F&G trapped, tagged and transferred one particular nuiscance bear 7 times, and was found each time in a different part of the state